>There are significant differences. Vietnam was a real war with real armies. In Iraq our soldiers are not there to defeat an enemy but to keep the peace. In a country that has descended into civil war, even though that phrase is not uttered by the administration. Keeping the peace isn't what soldiers are trained to do. This has been a fool's mission from the start, and I think you know which fool I mean.

Aye but, as I understand it (bit before my time) US troops were sent into Vietnam as advisors in, essentially, a civil war between N & S Vietnam (albeit to stop the spread of communism, yada yada yada). As time went on there were more and more "advisors" thrown at the conflict until they outnumbered the native army anyway. It too was a very costly "fool's mission".

Not exactly parallel but similar result: increasingly more boys thrown at it and many coming home in bags.

>
>The people I most sympathize with are the grunts from reserve units who have been deployed in Iraq. Sure, they knew when they signed up that they might be sent into a combat zone. But I think the deal they thought they were signing up for was "I have other things going on in my life now but if there is a genuine threat to our country, I'm there." Which is the spirit the U.S. was founded on. And now, despite the absence of any threat to our country from Iraq whatsoever other than to our reputation, they are routinely called into active duty. Even the old rules are being twisted. Reservists are redeployed to Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, again and again, with less time between missions than the prescribed one year.
>
>One Sunday last month at my younger daughter's volleyball practice I got into conversation with the only other parent there -- most are local and just pick up and drop off -- and he mentioned that he is in the NG. "Any chance of being called up?" I asked, expecting the answer to be no. Rich said he is expecting it. I was surprised. "Don't guys with families get preference?" "Not much," he said. "Not now."
>
>I won't be a bit surprised to find out he is one of Bush's new 20,000. And it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. These are real people. Tracy and others know far more of them than I do but it still burns me up. All to keep one President from having to say, "OK, so maybe I screwed up."

Interestingly, recruitment to the overstretched and increasingly danger-exposed British army, despite their privations, lack of eqpt, etc., has increased recently. Unfortunately natural wastage exceeds this by a few thousand. So they're upping the recruitment age to 33 or 35 and squaddies can now serve till 55 (suopposed to reflect the less physical/exherting nature of modern fighting but, seeing those lads running about in heavy gear, dodging mortar and bullets doesn't strike me as a walk in the park!)
>
>
>
>>Isn't this like what happened in Vietnam?
>>
>>>Brilliant! Let's throw more troops at the problem! (rolling eyes madly)
>>>
>>>The militia groups are already gearing up for an increase in hostilities. Bush's plan is going to make the situation in Iraq even more unstable, not less.
>>>
>>>
>>>>What did you think of the speech (and the stated plan) last nite?
>>>>
>>>>>The additional troops are going so hopefully congress will not stop the funding at this point because it will not bring home the troops but will only limit the ability to pay for the necessary equipment and hurt the troops.
...